@Watchgirl: let's say I have a factory in Mexico with 1000 employees. I'm paying each employee with $5/day. All the services are cheaper because my suppliers are paying their employees with $5/day. What can do any USA president to make me to move my factory couple of hundred kilometres to north (let's say Texas) and to be needed to my 1000 employees with $60/day and have all services more expensive because my new suppliers must pay their employees with $60/day aswell?
You can not rely on raw data for the growth of an economy with just using the national debt you also have to look at the gdp but we can not have another Clinton in office
Obama's performance will only look bad compared to recent presidents. He is trailing behind Roosevelt and wilson
Tha Don, President Clinton left the country on a fiscal path to a surplus (as in completely out of the deficit). President Bush squandered that potential with his unfunded wars and unprecedented tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy. Bush may have numerically only grew the debt by 4.9, but considering we were on a path to a surplus, his actual net loss was much higher. Then the GOP policies led us into another recession which was inherited by President Obama. Fortunately, Obama's fiscal policies were strong enough, even without the GOP support, to stop the recession from maturing into a full depression. Anyone who is old enough knows those numbers do not reflect the destructive GOP economic polices that appear to repeatedly bring the US to the brink, and the fact that it takes the Democrats to fix the economy.
Support This thread... Serves no purpose in my opinion and sucks. How about noone for next president kappa
Actually, the American economy has been doing better than most other advanced countries. We've had more growth and less unemployment. If we're sick, others are critically ill. Europe in particular has been lagging. They're just now starting to see some improvement after they stopped following disastrous austerity polices and decided to go for stimulus. China's not doing so great either. GDP growth is slowing, exports are falling, and their debt is growing. At any rate, a global race to the bottom for wages isn't the answer to national economic problems. That requires economic polices that shape markets to work in the public interest and for the long term rather than focusing entirely on profit. Understand, capitalism is the best mechanism we know of for creating wealth. But the down side is unregulated profit motive is socially and environmentally destructive. Unchecked, capitalism leads to monopolization and concentrated wealth inequality. That's the big problem we have now. Much of the world's wealth is being concentrated among to fewer and fewer people. And it's being used less productively. Don't just take my word on it. Here's what Mitt Romney's pals at Bain have to say: "World awash in nearly one quadrillion of cheap capital by end of decade, according to new Bain & Company report ...According to Bain, the resulting capital pool in 2020 will exceed real global GDP by a factor of ten, as global GDP increases by only $27 trillion over the same period. The net effect: Businesses and investors will struggle to find a sufficient supply of attractive, productive assets to absorb the amount of financial capital they have to invest, driving up asset prices and forcing them to lower their expectations for high rates of return on investments..." http://www.bain.com/about/press/press-r ... ecade.aspx The problem isn't a lack of money. The world is flooded with money. There's so much money they're running out of places to invest it. The problem is all that money isn't being used productively to benefit society. It's being mainly being used to make more money via financial instruments that focus on increasing "assets" prices and share value, not creating jobs. There's no reason to build factories to make widgets if there's not enough demand for widgets. And there's not enough demand for widgets because more and more people have less and less money to spend. The solution is to shape economic policy so that it deconcentrates some of the wealth and more people have money to spend. It really is that simple. Doing it is the hard part, because politics are largely controlled by the people with all the money.
Your math is wrong. If debt was $10.3 trillion when Bush left office (It wasn't. It was $10.6 trillion) and it's $18.2 trillion today, debt hasn't doubled yet. 10.6 x 2 = 21.2 It's basic math. You're playing games by cherry picking the time frame, the first 3 years. Furthermore, you act like time started in 2009. You're overlooking the reasons WHY debt increased so dramatically the first three years. Like the fact that we were in a global financial meltdown while still fighting two wars on credit. This is why so many conservative are bad at economics. They don't understand what drives the numbers. Half the time, they don't even understand the numbers themselves.
Legitimate question: out of all of salty's vocabulary, I have yet to figure out what "mirin" means. Anyone?
Ok, let's look at GDP Average annual change in real GDP per capita in the United States under Reagan was 2.65%. Under Clinton it was 2.91% http://www.statista.com/statistics/2386 ... -to-obama/ But wait, there's more: Average annual spending increases using inflation-adjusted figures under Reagan was 2.7%. Under Clinton it was 1.5%. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/ But wait, there's more: Net jobs created under Reagan was 16.1 million. Under Clinton it was 22.7 million. It gets worse when you break it down by the average new jobs per month. Under Clinton the average was 236k a month. Under Reagan it was 167k a month. For giggles, under Carter it was 214k a month. Yes, Carter had better average monthly job creation than Reagan. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/ But wait there's more: Under Clinton, US debt increased by 37%. Under Reagan, it increased by 190%. That's right. One hundred and ninety percent. Reagan still holds the record since WW2. Under Reagan debt nearly TRIPLED. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/duelin ... eceptions/ Now correct me if I'm wrong, but conservatives consider Reagan to be an economic genius. Yet Clinton outperformed him economically AND left less debt while Reagan holds the debt creation record. Also, Clinton was the last President to preside over budget surpluses. You remember them. They're the ones Bush used to justify his tax cuts less than two months into office. "Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut February 24, 2001 - President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-surplu ... s-tax-cut/ So explain exactly why we can't have another Clinton in the White House?
Who is jilari Clinton - is she the younger hotter relative of Hilary Clinton? If she is - she has my vote!
We already established jilari is the jihad cat earlier in the thread and that nobody actually read what salty posted.
I'm not votin for a cat that engages in jihad I'm also not votin for Hilary - dun trust a woman who still looks like a man after being photoshopped But I'll vote for jilari Clinton if she is a hot younger woman
Btw dun assume that Hilary will be like bill Hilary doesn't want to b in bill's shadow. The last thing she wants is her term to b referred to as bill's 3rd term. And from all accounts, she's a strong woman and if she is president, she will do it her way.
Why we can't have a Clinton in the White House is simply because hmm lets see no federal official can have its own server to use for official business. Hillary was secretary of the state her job was to inspect embassy's to see if they needed additional help well look at what happened to Benghazi people died because she didn't do her job. Now let's look at the benefits to having your own server you can erase all emails you do not want to be seen no government official other than hillarys secret service member and the person who set it up knows what was on it. Dereliction of duty is the other main point. If another Clinton is put in the White House then the election system we have in place failed because we are only putting celebrity people in office
It won't be Cruz, he is too right winged. And you did not mention Busch.. At least his family didn't almost get impeached
I really feel the email thing is a non issue - if it were state dept employees and other federal govt employees would have made a stink of this earlier. But yes I do feel that she wanted her own server because she could control what is released and deleted - who doesn't. I think comparing gdp is not a great idea because part of clinton's economic success was based on sub prime mortgages that down the line led to our Great Recession. Short term his policy was an economic boon but long term was a castrophy. Who in the Republican Party will rise? Too early to say. Also isn't it too early to think that Hilary will get the democratic nomination. I feel that Hilary has the same problems as Romney - she is trying to recreate her image as someone relateable and personable. She even hired Michelle Obama's pr person and pretty much hired Barack Obama's election team. The problem is you can't change how ppl perceive you. Romney tried hard to change his image but couldn't - too many ppl see her in a negative light. If a more likeable candidate comes along - he/she could steal the nomination from her.